Norwich Union wont check other cars details

[Chesterexpress]

i believe parked illegally on the road and as such shouldn't be there

 

dazzlin, do you actually read what people are posting? Direct Line are a pretty big player in the insurance business, why on earth would they have contacted your insurer's if they didn't insure the vehicle that you hit? I think it is fairly obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that the vehicle WAS INSURED.

 

Using your logic, if I was parked illegally on double yellow lines and you carelessly hit my vehicle, then you would no doubt blame me for being parked illegally for your careless driving? I think you live on another planet to the rest of the people who have contributed to this post!

[JonCris]

because it ain't the law of the land & thank gawd for that.....of course the cops were sympathetic......they are the cops...but even they don't get to make up the rules

 

As I have pointed out if the law was changed to the way you want many many injustices would be suffered by Innocent people.........you should never get away with causing damage to someone else's property then claim exemption from liability because the other guy wasn't insured

[JonCris]

dazzlin, do you actually read what people are posting? Direct Line are a pretty big player in the insurance business, why on earth would they have contacted your insurer's if they didn't insure the vehicle that you hit? I think it is fairly obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that the vehicle WAS INSURED.

 

Using your logic, if I was parked illegally on double yellow lines and you carelessly hit my vehicle, then you would no doubt blame me for being parked illegally for your careless driving? I think you live on another planet to the rest of the people who have contributed to this post!

 

Believe it or not Chester that has actually been tried........driver came around corner struck car parked on DYL & tried to blame the other driver cos he was parked on DYL.......some folks attitude just beggars belief

[dazzlin73]

without a valid mot cert insurance is none and void. well that what i was told by the authorities.

[Chesterexpress]

without a valid mot cert insurance is none and void. well that what i was told by the authorities.

 

 

In that case, you have most definitely been talking to someone who knows absolutely nothing about road traffic law and insurance!

[gyzmo]

Err - no. certificate of insuranc is only evidence of the contract. The MOT does not affect insurance except if TLd or if it fundamentally breaches the policy. But that does not affect third party risks.

 

I have also had the "he was parked on double yellows" excuse. Also had "the skip shouldn't have been there", "I was not driving too close to the car in front - he braked too quickly", "the tree wasn't there yesterday" (I kid you not), "He should have moved - there was a gap" (smacking into back of another car on approach to a roundabout) and the best of the lot was when the insured's way was blocked on a car park. the insured repeatedly rammed the TP vehicle to get out. But did he accept liability? Oooh no. And most disgusting of all was a claim from an injured pedestrian claiming against a doctor for damage caused to clothing (when said doctor had to remove clothes quickly to perform emergency surgery on said pedestrian). And another where a driver negligently hit a cyclist (thankfully not badly injured) and tried to claim damages for the cost of cleaning his car of the blood.

[JonCris]

In that case, you have most definitely been talking to someone who knows absolutely nothing about road traffic law and insurance!

 

 

I agree chester

 

The OP wants to find some way of blaming the victim no matter what:evil:

[patdavies]

without a valid mot cert insurance is none and void. well that what i was told by the authorities.

 

Sorry, that's total bollox. Refer to the Vehicle Excise & Registration Act. What 'authorities' told you ?

 

..and the phrase is "null and void":rolleyes:

[patdavies]

I agree chester

 

The OP wants to find some way of blaming the victim no matter what:evil:

 

I too agree:-D

[gyzmo]

Dittoed. There are some people who, no matter what, will not listen to reason. The fact that the answer is unlikeable does not make it incorrect. A fact that a few people need to understand.

[JonCris]

Yes gyzmo

We are all trying to help each other fight the injustices that are perpetrated against many here & someone comes on here expecting that we will support their attempt to commit an injustice to their victim beggars belief.........I wonder why they thought that??

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

old andrew, yes we reversed into a stationary car...welldone but what has that got to do with a pedestrian?

The answer is you were incompetent, negligent, quite simply a danger on the road, to reverse out without checking what was behind confirms this does it not.

Lets talk here about danger to pedestrians, you wouldn't have seen the man, woman, or child walking past, why because you didn't check did you, so my analogy to pedestrians is valid isn't it

 

joncris, we admitted to the accident and have admitted liability. i believe our insurer is or has paid out already.

What else could one do you were responsible, you reversed in to the car

when people drive negligently into another car, they get penalized by their insurance company. you don't know by how much as you don't know what sort of accident you unfortunately would have had. this is legal and how it should be. should this still be the case if a car is parked illegally? the third party know they are parking illegally but will not get penalized!!!

Yes they do by an issue of a PCN for example

 

what angers me is that people have been quick to say its all our fault.

It was your fault, you admitted to it, the accident was a direct result of your own supidity wasn't it, reversing out without checking if anything or anyone was behind you whose fault is that its yours.

 

[BADGER 69]

If my memory serves me correctly there was a case some years ago when a motorist successfully sued someone for contributing to an accident by obstructing the view and thus causing a hazard when she was coming on to the road from her own property. I think it was in the 1980s or it could have been the 70s.

[rdm2006]

here is my 2p worth

 

Yes this person is wrong in hitting the car regardless of it being taxed, insured etc. there is no way of getting out of that and they have admitted it.

 

However, does being a victim allow that person to 1/ hike up the costs by doing the work themselves and adding bits on and/or 2/ abuse and threaten the (for the want of a better word) offender. NO it does not. after all it was an accident.

 

From all I can see the poster became a victim when the original victim became abusive and they need the details in order to pursue this.

 

This probably wont be a popular view but there are some double standards being displayed here i.e. the original victim can break the law and have an untaxed car on the road but still be able to claim for damages done to it, but it appears that the OP can't cause an accident and bring an abusive and threatening person to justice.

 

To the person who suggested that they keep quiet to avoid further reprisals - would you tell a child who is being bullied at school to keep quiet to avoid further action??????

 

The point I find most confusing is: - If the owner of the uninsured car is not known then who is going to be paid out.

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

here is my 2p worth

 

Yes this person is wrong in hitting the car regardless of it being taxed, insured etc. there is no way of getting out of that and they have admitted it.

 

However, does being a victim allow that person to 1/ hike up the costs by doing the work themselves and adding bits on and/or 2/ abuse and threaten the (for the want of a better word) offender. NO it does not. after all it was an accident. There is no evidence to support an argument that any excessive charges are claimed, the OP claims the car was uninsured, untaxed, why then are direct line claiming from NU.

 

From all I can see the poster became a victim when the original victim became abusive and they need the details in order to pursue this.

They could have called the police, they claim to have recieved a threateing letter, what rubbish with this evidence, they could have reported this to the police, with the police would have acting if this was the case would they not.

 

The point I find most confusing is: - If the owner of the uninsured car is not known then who is going to be paid out.

Who said that it was the OP, the insurance company are paying out so they know who the claimant is.

 

The OP tried to draw Beccus into their arguement with this statement

have just got off the phone to BECCA (CAG member and NU). she said will get back to me after a thorough investigation has taken place. if they havent all the docs then they may not payout!!but thats not definite!!

The above post required Beccus to come on line to point out to the OP that she did not make the statement.

 

 

[rdm2006]

I am neither on one persons side or the other.

 

The point i am making is that you cant say one person is allowed to be both an offender and a victim and then say that the other is not.

 

If everything is as described (and yes I do not know I was not there) then both parties are both victims and aggressors and therefore both are fully entitled to seek justice.

 

I have made no reference to becca as i do not believe that anything was going to be disclosed, becca simply said she would get someone to look at it.

 

I am entitled to an opinion and if you read it you will notice that i have not given an opinion which weighs more on one side than the other. I simply wanted to advise people that even if you do cause an accident you do not have to suffer any abuse from the other person.

[gyzmo]

They may be but the problem is that two wrongs do not make a right and the actions of one do not affect the remedy of the other. The OP is seeking to claim that their wrong does not entitle them to a remedy for his own wrong. The issue is simply that the OP cannot, or does not want to separate the various issues apart.

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

I am neither on one persons side or the other.

 

The point i am making is that you cant say one person is allowed to be both an offender and a victim and then say that the other is not.

 

If everything is as described (and yes I do not know I was not there) then both parties are both victims and aggressors and therefore both are fully entitled to seek justice.

 

I have made no reference to becca as i do not believe that anything was going to be disclosed, becca simply said she would get someone to look at it. Accepted this comment was to direct readers that the OP appears to have been economical with the truth, Becca corrected the statement

 

I am entitled to an opinion and if you read it you will notice that i have not given an opinion which weighs more on one side than the other.

Quite right you are entitled, my posting simply points to the incredible statment/s by the OP's (as his wife also posted).

They have tried to involve police, then complain about their inaction, I expect there is no basis for any of thier complaints.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[JonCris]

here is my 2p worth

 

Yes this person is wrong in hitting the car regardless of it being taxed, insured etc. there is no way of getting out of that and they have admitted it.

 

However, does being a victim allow that person to 1/ hike up the costs by doing the work themselves and adding bits on and/or 2/ abuse and threaten the (for the want of a better word) offender. NO it does not. after all it was an accident.

 

From all I can see the poster became a victim when the original victim became abusive and they need the details in order to pursue this.

 

This probably wont be a popular view but there are some double standards being displayed here i.e. the original victim can break the law and have an untaxed car on the road but still be able to claim for damages done to it, but it appears that the OP can't cause an accident and bring an abusive and threatening person to justice.

 

To the person who suggested that they keep quiet to avoid further reprisals - would you tell a child who is being bullied at school to keep quiet to avoid further action??????

 

The point I find most confusing is: - If the owner of the uninsured car is not known then who is going to be paid out.

 

What can I say but utter rubbish.......& having seen the comments of the OP is it little wonder that the victim threatened him if he displayed the same mind set as here

 

The victim was the victim & will always remain the victim & if the victim threatened the negligent driver's husband then that's another matter all to together.........to suggest the victims own unrelated actions negated his right to compensation is frankly utter drivel

 

Senario...........idiot negligent driver runs into my car whilst unattended.........I arrive & call the driver an idiot who should not be on the road & in my frustration I threaten him when he gets snotty without actually doing anything.....result I now can't expect the idiot to pay for my damage.....yeah right

 

As for the cost of the repair that's between the insurer who's paying & the 3rd party

 

"After all it was only an accident" Once again there is no such thing as an 'accident' were there is negligence. In other words it was not unavoidable

 

Badger without knowing the exact circumstances of the case you mention it's impossible to comment other than that here it was not the same The OP struck a parked unattended vehicle

[dazzlin73]

joncris, accident in the dictionary means an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance. also an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance. (edit)

 

thank you rdm 2006, at least there is some people out there that understands the situation.

 

(edit) i never said the car is uninsured, un mot'd or untaxed. i simply wanted my insurer to check these before paying out as i thought that you needed all of them so your car was legally allowed to be parked on the public highway. we now know this is not the case. please read all the posts properly before replying (edit).

 

gyzmo, you are right, two wrongs dont make a right. i just wasnt aware that you can park on the road without an mot or tax and still get paid out if something happens like our case.

 

it was my understanding that when you have an ACCIDENT, you should both swop insurance details like we did only for his to be for a different car. if we dont swop them then as the police said, its a crime and is called with holding details.

 

we never said we were not liable and it is clear that we didnt know the law. our point was he has lied to everyone including the police and his late fathers best friend!! why would you do this if you are the victim? it is clear they have something to hide and that is why i wanted my insurer to check. i just want the number plate so the police can do a pnc check the car. if it turns out that the car has no tax then why should we be the only ones penalized for a car that has broken the law by parking on the road? most of you keep saying he's the victim but if it was parked illegally then isn't HE the victim of his own demeaning. we never wanted this, if he had swapped details then the insurers would have dealt with it and that would've been it. as he has lied, threatened and been unco-operative then isn't there fair reason to think somethings not right?!!!! why would he say my names mr nobody, why not be civil?!!!

[dazzlin73]

with regards to what beccus told me on the phone, when i said that insurers will pay out regardless of all documents, she replied with 'thats not always the case'

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

joncris, accident in the dictionary means an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance. also an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance. (EDIT)

I'd call it an incident, you were simply negligent I see no mitigating circumstances

thank you rdm 2006, at least there is some people out there that understands the situation.

 

(EDIT) i never said the car is uninsured, un mot'd or untaxed Refer to post #1. i simply wanted my insurer to check these before paying out as i thought that you needed all of them so your car was legally allowed to be parked on the public highway. We now know this is not the case. please read all the posts properly before replying (EDIT). I've read all your posts, my conclusion is the same, you were negilgent, not only that you then make potentially libellous accusions against the owner of the other car.

You claim threatening letter was sent yet supply no evidence.

Let me give an example of a threatening letter, (based on a recent incident) I see someone trying to park their car, whilst doing so they hit mine, some damage occured, I request their details they refuse.

I write to them giving 7 days to supply insurance details, or I will report this to the police, a threatening letter but puts a very different complextion on things does it not.

 

gyzmo, you are right, two wrongs dont make a right. i just wasnt aware that you can park on the road without an mot or tax and still get paid out if something happens like our case.

 

it was my understanding that when you have an ACCIDENT, you should both swop insurance details like we did only for his to be for a different car. if we dont swop them then as the police said, its a crime and is called with holding details.

 

we never said we were not liable and it is clear that we didnt know the law. our point was he has lied to everyone including the police and his late fathers best friend!! why would you do this if you are the victim? it is clear they have something to hide and that is why i wanted my insurer to check. i just want the number plate so the police can do a pnc check the car. if it turns out that the car has no tax then why should we be the only ones penalized for a car that has broken the law by parking on the road? most of you keep saying he's the victim but if it was parked illegally then isn't HE the victim of his own demeaning. we never wanted this, if he had swapped details then the insurers would have dealt with it and that would've been it. as he has lied, threatened and been unco-operative then isn't there fair reason to think somethings not right?!!!! why would he say my names mr nobody, why not be civil?!!! Where's your evidence, why to you keep referring to a car parked illegally, IMHO you can write reams on the forum, the simple to truth is the only victim is the other owner, and they are the victim because other person was negligent, it is my belief that the site will not condone libel, or support avoidence of responsibility

 

So why not accept that only yourselves are to blame, taking some responsibility for your actions

 

Andy

[JonCris]

"An accident is a result of unforeseen circumstances".......

 

The circumstances as described here by the OP........are NOT unforeseen & therefore are NOT an accident....it has been caused by the negligent actions of the driver of the moving vehicle striking a parked & unattended one.....call it what you like dazzling but an accident it ain't

 

Also so what if he does have something to hide it's a matter for the police & none of your business. Also it doesn't alter the fact that your wife is the negligent party & he's the victim

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

"An accident is a result of unforeseen crircumstances".......

 

The circumstances as described here by the OP........are NOT unforeseen & therefore are NOT an accident....it has been caused by the negligent actions of the driver of the moving vehicle striking a parked & unattended one.....call it what you like dazzling but an accident it ain't I agree and suggest a better description would be an incident, if I drove one of our company lease vehicles and crashed into another vehicle in that way it would be recorded as an incident.

What more can anyone really add,

 

Andy

 

[JonCris]

The police now refer to themselves as 'Crash' Investigators & describe what were often referred to accidents as incidents. A term which can cover everything from a terrorist bombing to a minor traffic collision